37 Both the state controlled and privately-owned media presented journalists with constrained work environments. Independent investigative journalism was next to impossible. . . . journalism in the service of the public interest, is seriously undermined (p.69) While the above is true, Gallagher (1982) argues that the power relations in the broader society are dynamic and fluid. This means that journalists are not going to be perpetually servile. From time to time, various media professionals will test the limits placed on them by other centres of power including the state. Thus, Gallagher (1982, p.170-171) argues that: . . . mass communication is indeed bound with, and bounded by, the interests of the dominant institutions of society, but these interests are continually redefined through a process to which the media themselves contribute. As argued above in this section, citizens and voters have need of access to a variety of political viewpoints (Picard, 2000, p.162). Democracy flourishes were citizens are exposed to a wide range of ideas, viewpoints and different forms of cultural expressions. The real threat of owners using their media outlets for political purposes as noted by Chimombo & Chimombo (1996) and Patel (2000) in Malawi appears to be at variance with democratic principles. 2.2.2 Competing Forms of „Journalism‟ The discussion on the role of the media in a democracy cannot be complete without a discussion on competing forms of journalism in the southern African region. There are three forms of journalism that are manifest in the media in Malawi with the shifting alignment of political parties and media ownership. From time to time depending on the

38 ownership and that owner‟s alignment to a political party, a newspaper can practice any one of these form of journalism. Chuma (2007, p.258) argues that these types of journalism are „patriotic‟, „oppositional‟ and „independent nationalist‟. Further, Chuma argues that the emergence of these three types of journalism in Zimbabwe during that country‟s 2000 election are a reflection of the dynamic connections between the press, ownership, civil society and the state. However, it is quite clear that more than civil society, ownership and its relationship to the centres of political power decide which form of journalism to adopt. In relation to the emergence of patriotic journalism in Zimbabwe, Ranger (2005, 10) noted that “. . . this kind of journalism is narrow and divisive – a substitute for ideology and analysis”. Further, Ranger (2005, p.8) notes that in this kind of journalism citizens are divided into patriots and traitors. Non-citizens are divided into supporters and imperialists. In addition, according to Chuma (2008) another feature of patriotic journalism is that it is used by those in power to delegitimize those who are critical or opposed to them especially during political contests such as elections. Usually, this form of journalism is practiced by the state controlled media and media whose intent is to act as mouthpiece of those in power. Another feature of patriotic journalism is one-sided sourcing of election stories and partisanship of editorial comments. According to Chuma (2007, p.168) the „opposition‟ form of journalism is a direct result of the dichotomised political environment which groups citizens into opposition and patriots. Opposition journalism rises in answer, or as a counter, to patriotic journalism. In this state of affairs, opposition journalism refuses to see any good in government. In fact, the welfare of the citizens is seen as synonymous with the opposition alone. The ruling elite, including the government and the ruling party, are delegitimized. Chuma (2007, p.168) also notes that this kind of journalism may emerge